July 12, 2021 Dear Chairman Sanders and Senator Graham

July 12, 2021

Honorable Bernie Sanders Chairman Committee on the Budget United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Honorable Lindsey Graham Ranking Member Committee on the Budget United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Sanders and Senator Graham:

As negotiations continue between Congress and the White House on legislation to address the Nation’s infrastructure needs, we write to inform you of the most crucial infrastructure needs of the Judicial Branch. Our request totals $1.54 billion and covers direct funding for the Judicial Branch as well as funding for two of our Executive Branch partners, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Federal Protective Service (FPS), on whom we depend to ensure that sufficient space and security infrastructure is in place for conducting court operations. The Judicial Branch’s requirements for Courthouse and Judicial Security Infrastructure, Courthouse Construction Infrastructure, and Cybersecurity and IT Modernization Infrastructure are detailed below, and summarized in Enclosure 1.1 Funding of the Judicial Branch’s most pressing infrastructure needs is essential to the day-to-day operations of the Nation’s federal courts.

In the event the budget reconciliation process is utilized to pass an infrastructure bill, we ask that reconciliation instructions for the appropriate authorizing committees be included in the budget resolution to ensure that the Judicial Branch’s infrastructure needs

1This letter provides updated Judiciary infrastructure requirements and supersedes the letters transmitted to Congress on April 12, 2021. Honorable Bernie Sanders Honorable Lindsey Graham Page 2 can be addressed. Once reconciliation instructions have been adopted in a budget resolution, we will work with each committee on specific legislative language as appropriate.

Courthouse and Judicial Security Infrastructure ($389.5 million)

There is an urgent need for immediate Congressional action to address the security of judges and federal courthouses. Over the past year, the federal Judiciary has suffered an increasing number of acts of violence and vandalism on and off courthouse premises. In July 2020, a disgruntled litigant, posing as a delivery courier, went to the New Jersey home of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas and murdered her son and critically wounded her husband. An FPS guard was shot to death in May 2020 outside the federal courthouse in Oakland, California. A court security officer was shot and wounded in September 2020 outside the federal courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona. And more than 50 federal courthouses sustained damage during public disturbances and violent incidents occurring at or near federal courthouses in 2020.

The threat to federal courts is getting worse. According to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) the number of threats and inappropriate communications targeting judges and other personnel essential to court proceedings rose from 926 in 2015, to 4,261 in 2020, a 360 percent increase. Our constitutional system depends on judges who can make decisions without fear of reprisal or retribution. This is essential not just for the safety of judges and their families, but also to protect our democracy.

A comprehensive approach is required to effectively address the growing violence and threats facing the Judiciary. This includes both authorizing legislation and increased appropriations for the Judiciary, USMS, and FPS. We ask Congress to provide the needed funding, a substantial portion of which is for the construction or acquisition of security-related infrastructure.

We are seeking $112.5 million for the Judiciary’s Court Security program to harden courthouses to withstand a hostile incursion, and $10.0 million for a new security vulnerability program to proactively manage security vulnerabilities at the national, circuit, and district level and to address increasing threats against federal judges, their families, and federal court facilities. In addition, we request $267.0 million as a direct appropriation to FPS to upgrade aging perimeter security cameras at federal courthouses and other court facilities.

Honorable Bernie Sanders Honorable Lindsey Graham Page 3

H.R. 3237, the “Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January 6th Appropriations Act, 2021,” passed the House of Representatives on May 20, 2021, includes the $112.5 million requested to harden courthouses, $10.0 million for a security vulnerability program to improve judges’ safety, and $35.0 million for the Judiciary to reimburse FPS for security camera upgrades (instead of a direct appropriation to FPS). The timing of Senate consideration and action on H.R. 3237 remains uncertain. Accordingly, we request that any infrastructure bill include funding for these critical security infrastructure needs.

Courthouse Construction Infrastructure ($634.3 million)

We anticipate an infrastructure bill will include funding for GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund to address, to some extent, government-wide new construction needs and the backlog of repairs and alterations projects. We ask that infrastructure funding provided to GSA be sufficient to address the Judiciary’s courthouse construction and Capital Security Program requests totaling $634.3 million, as outlined below.

The Judicial Conference of the United States has transmitted to Congress a request for three new courthouse projects as reflected on the September 2020 Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) plan: (1) San Juan, Puerto Rico; (2) Hartford, Connecticut; and (3) Chattanooga, Tennessee. The San Juan, Puerto Rico project is deemed a judicial space emergency by the Judicial Conference and designated our top space priority due to the significant seismic deficiencies in the courthouse complex in addition to pre-existing building, space, and security deficiencies. The Judiciary requests $262.2 million for GSA for the Puerto Rico courthouse project.

The Judiciary also requests $294.1 million to provide the remaining funding needed for new courthouse projects in Hartford, Connecticut, and Chattanooga, Tennessee (partial funding was provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021). This funding will ensure these two projects proceed in an efficient and expeditious manner. The CPP also identifies outyear courthouse construction priorities in Bowling Green, Kentucky; Anchorage, Alaska; Greensboro/Winston Salem, North Carolina; McAllen Texas; and Norfolk, Virginia. Enclosure 2 provides a copy of the CPP for your review.

The Judicial Branch also seeks $78.0 million for GSA’s Capital Security Program (CSP), which is a component of GSA’s Repairs and Alterations program. The CSP exists to addresses security deficiencies in existing courthouse buildings where physical renovations are viable in lieu of constructing a new courthouse. Substantial improvements include the construction of sally ports (secured vehicle parking at

Honorable Bernie Sanders Honorable Lindsey Graham Page 4 courthouses used by the U.S. Marshals Service for prisoner transport) or the addition of elevators to improve circulation patterns for the public, judges, and prisoners. These improvements can be achieved with relatively modest alterations at lower cost and on a quicker timetable than new construction. This program has not received a congressional appropriation since FY 2018, resulting in a significant backlog of approved projects. At a time when threats against judges are increasing and violent incidents on and off federal courthouse premises have become more common, the basic security improvements made possible by the CSP are more important now than ever. We request additional funding for GSA totaling $78.0 million for CSP projects in Augusta, Georgia ($18.7 million); Fort Wayne, Indiana ($17.2 million); Burlington, Vermont ($21.7 million); and Hattiesburg, Mississippi ($20.4 million).

The Judiciary supports additional funding for GSA’s Basic and Major Repairs and Alterations (R&A) program, a component piece of the Federal Buildings Fund, to ensure safe, secure, and functional space for judges and Judiciary employees. Every year, the Judiciary pays over $1 billion in rent to GSA, a significant portion of which is intended to cover the costs of maintaining and upgrading existing facilities. Because of funding constraints, GSA has received just over half ($6.4 billion) of the $12.1 billion it has requested for its R&A program since FY 2011. This has led to deteriorating building systems, broken elevators, and significant mold and water intrusion problems in numerous courthouses across the country. Accordingly, we ask that Congress consider funding for GSA’s Basic and Major R&A program in an infrastructure bill so GSA can begin to address the backlog of needed repairs to courthouses and court facilities.

Cybersecurity and IT Modernization Infrastructure ($515.0 million)

The combination of sharp increases in the number of cyberattacks on Judiciary IT systems, aging legacy applications critical to court operations, and funding shortfalls has created IT vulnerabilities that require an infusion of resources to address. Without additional resources, these IT vulnerabilities will impact our ability to provide core IT services and cyber protections for the courts, or to undertake much needed modernization projects. The constraints of the annual appropriations process simply do not allow for investments of the magnitude needed for a comprehensive retooling of our IT systems, applications, and accompanying infrastructure. Accordingly, we look to the Congress to provide $515.0 million in urgently needed one-time IT funding in the infrastructure bill for the priorities described below.

Of the total amount requested, $149.0 million is for cybersecurity improvements to respond to increasing threats and attacks against Judiciary IT systems. A recent IT security assessment conducted by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity

Honorable Bernie Sanders Honorable Lindsey Graham Page 5 and Infrastructure Security Agency, highlighted several serious Judiciary cybersecurity vulnerabilities that, collectively, pose significant threats to the security and integrity of Judiciary IT systems. The requested funding would be used to expand the Judiciary’s IT Security Operations Center to improve our ability to monitor, prevent, investigate, and respond to cyber threats; expand and upgrade multi-factor authentication and identity confirmation technology to ensure only credentialed users are accessing Judiciary IT systems; strengthen “end point” security to ensure devices accessing Judiciary networks are authorized to do so; and implement a development, security, and operations approach, known as DevSecOps, for software development to integrate IT security at every phase of software development, testing, and implementation.

We request $212.0 million for a range of IT initiatives related to application modernization, which provides essential infrastructure for key Judiciary programs, and for network management modernization and data security modernization.2 The Judiciary’s largest application modernization project underway is the Probation and Pretrial Services Case Tracking System (PACTS) 360 project that will replace the aging and failing case management system used by probation and pretrial services officers to supervise defendants awaiting trial and offenders released from prison. Other application modernization projects include updating the Jury Management System federal courts use to select, manage, and track the service of the hundreds of thousands of citizens serving on grand and petit juries, and a new eVoucher system used by federal courts to enter, validate, and process payments for 14,000 private “panel” attorneys appointed by federal courts across the country to provide defendants in criminal cases constitutionally guaranteed legal representation. Funding is also requested for network modernization activities, such as an enterprise architecture initiative to establish formal technical standards and governing principles to ensure IT assets and business processes are aligned with core Judiciary missions. Data security modernization efforts include upgrading electronic data warehousing capabilities and implementing cloud-based backup technologies to safeguard Judiciary data.

Finally, $154.0 million would be used to relocate one of the Judiciary’s data centers to another location. This is particularly urgent due to a contract expiration with no option for renewal. As a result, the Judiciary must remove its entire server and infrastructure environment from the current data center no later than July 2024. This is a huge undertaking. The Judiciary must proceed rapidly over the next three years to ensure mission critical IT systems for courts and federal defender offices nationwide continue

2 The Judiciary may have further IT infrastructure requirements related to the modernization of the Judiciary’s case management/electronic case files system if user fees generated from accessing court documents through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system are insufficient to cover modernization costs.

Honorable Bernie Sanders Honorable Lindsey Graham Page 6 uninterrupted during the transition. In parallel to the data center relocation, the Judiciary will also begin implementing its cloud strategy and will start migrating to commercial cloud services as a preferred solution to minimize the Judiciary’s reliance in the future upon physical data centers. Cloud computing technology is proven to be more secure, cost effective, and reliable from a business continuity perspective.

Closing

Thank you for consideration of the Judicial Branch’s $1.54 billion infrastructure request to fund the needs of the Judiciary and our executive branch partners (GSA and FPS). We hope that this letter sufficiently conveys to Congress the urgency needed to address our most crucial infrastructure needs for courthouse security, courthouse construction, and information technology. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the Administrative Office’s Financial Liaison and Analysis Staff on 202-502-2130 if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely, Sincerely,

John W. Lungstrum Roslynn R. Mauskopf Chair, Committee on the Budget Secretary

Enclosures cc: Honorable Richard J. Durbin Honorable Charles E. Grassley Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse Honorable John Kennedy Honorable Thomas R. Carper Honorable Shelley Moore Capito Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin Honorable Kevin Cramer Honorable Gary Peters Honorable Rob Portman Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Honorable Richard C. Shelby Honorable Chris Van Hollen Honorable Cindy Hyde-Smith Honorable Shalanda Young

July 12, 2021

Honorable John Yarmuth Chairman Committee on the Budget United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Honorable Jason Smith Ranking Member Committee on the Budget United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Yarmuth and Representative Smith:

1This letter provides updated Judiciary infrastructure requirements and supersedes the letters transmitted to Congress on April 12, 2021. Honorable John Yarmuth Honorable Jason Smith Page 2 can be addressed. Once reconciliation instructions have been adopted in a budget resolution, we will work with each committee on specific legislative language as appropriate.

Courthouse and Judicial Security Infrastructure ($389.5 million)

Honorable John Yarmuth Honorable Jason Smith Page 3

Courthouse Construction Infrastructure ($634.3 million)

Honorable John Yarmuth Honorable Jason Smith Page 4 courthouses used by the U.S. Marshals Service for prisoner transport) or the addition of elevators to improve circulation patterns for the public, judges, and prisoners. These improvements can be achieved with relatively modest alterations at lower cost and on a quicker timetable than new construction. This program has not received a congressional appropriation since FY 2018, resulting in a significant backlog of approved projects. At a time when threats against judges are increasing and violent incidents on and off federal courthouse premises have become more common, the basic security improvements made possible by the CSP are more important now than ever. We request additional funding for GSA totaling $78.0 million for CSP projects in Augusta, Georgia ($18.7 million); Fort Wayne, Indiana ($17.2 million); Burlington, Vermont ($21.7 million); and Hattiesburg, Mississippi ($20.4 million).

Cybersecurity and IT Modernization Infrastructure ($515.0 million)

Honorable John Yarmuth Honorable Jason Smith Page 5 and Infrastructure Security Agency, highlighted several serious Judiciary cybersecurity vulnerabilities that, collectively, pose significant threats to the security and integrity of Judiciary IT systems. The requested funding would be used to expand the Judiciary’s IT Security Operations Center to improve our ability to monitor, prevent, investigate, and respond to cyber threats; expand and upgrade multi-factor authentication and identity confirmation technology to ensure only credentialed users are accessing Judiciary IT systems; strengthen “end point” security to ensure devices accessing Judiciary networks are authorized to do so; and implement a development, security, and operations approach, known as DevSecOps, for software development to integrate IT security at every phase of software development, testing, and implementation.

Honorable John Yarmuth Honorable Jason Smith Page 6 uninterrupted during the transition. In parallel to the data center relocation, the Judiciary will also begin implementing its cloud strategy and will start migrating to commercial cloud services as a preferred solution to minimize the Judiciary’s reliance in the future upon physical data centers. Cloud computing technology is proven to be more secure, cost effective, and reliable from a business continuity perspective.

Closing

Sincerely, Sincerely,

John W. Lungstrum Roslynn R. Mauskopf Chair, Committee on the Budget Secretary

Enclosures cc: Honorable Jerrold Nadler Honorable Jim Jordan Honorable Hank Johnson Honorable Darrell Issa Honorable Peter A. DeFazio Honorable Sam Graves Honorable Dina Titus Honorable Daniel Webster Honorable Bennie Thompson Honorable John Katko Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney Honorable James R. Comer Honorable Rosa DeLauro Honorable Kay Granger Honorable Mike Quigley Honorable Steve Womack Honorable Shalanda Young Enclosure 1 Judicial Branch’s Infrastructure Request Summary ($ in millions)

Branch Agency/Program Purpose Cost Description Judicial Branch Court Security Courthouse Hardening $112.5 Harden courthouses to withstand hostile incursion. Judicial Branch Court Security Security Vulnerability $10.0 To proactively manage security Program vulnerabilities and address increasing threats against federal judges, their families, and federal court facilities. Executive Branch Dept. of Homeland Exterior Perimeter $267.0 To provide a direct appropriation to FPS

Security - Federal Security Cameras to replace aging exterior security cameras Protective Service at courthouses and court facilities. Judicial/Courthouse Security Infrastructure, Subtotal $389.5 Executive Branch General Services New Courthouse $556.3 To fund new courthouse projects in San Administration – Construction Juan, PR; Hartford, CT; and Federal Buildings Fund Chattanooga, TN. Executive Branch General Services Judiciary Capital $78.0 To fund Capital Security Program projects Administration – Security Program at courthouses in Augusta, GA; Fort Federal Buildings Fund Wayne, IN; Burlington, VT; and Hattiesburg, MS. Courthouse Construction Infrastructure, Subtotal $634.3 Judicial Branch Salaries and Expenses Cybersecurity $149.0 For cybersecurity improvements to ($136M); Defender respond to increasing threats and attacks Services ($13M) against Judiciary IT systems. Judicial Branch Salaries and Expenses IT Modernization $212.0 To modernize core Judiciary business ($199M); Defender applications. Services ($13M) Judicial Branch Salaries and Expenses Data Center Move and $154.0 For Judiciary data center relocation and ($152M); Defender Cloud Computing migration to commercial cloud IT Services ($2M) services.

Cybersecurity/IT Modernization Infrastructure, Subtotal $515.0

Judicial Branch’s Infrastructure Request, Total $1,538.8

Page 1 of 1 Enclosure 2 FEDERAL JUDICIARY COURTHOUSE PROJECT PRIORITIES (CPP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 AS APPROVED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SEPTEMBER 2020

The Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) is the judiciary’s list of courthouse construction funding priorities as approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States (Judicial Conference). The CPP was developed using the results of the Asset Management Planning (AMP) process. Approved by the Judicial Conference in 2008, AMP is a comprehensive facility planning tool designed to identify the judiciary’s most urgent space needs, address cost-containment concerns, and incorporate applicable industry best practices. Under the AMP process, each courthouse nationwide is assessed to determine current and future needs, identify preliminary housing solutions as needed, and calculate the relative urgency of need compared to other courts nationwide. Factors considered include building condition, building functionality, security, compliance with space standards, courtroom and chambers needs, and caseload and personnel growth. From this assessment, an Urgency Evaluation (UE) Results List that ranks space urgency by court location on a “worst first” basis is developed. Each location’s UE rating is updated annually until a project is placed on Part I of the CPP, at which time its rating is “frozen” for purposes of planning certainty. The CPP is divided into two parts. Part I, provided below, consists of the judiciary’s courthouse construction funding priorities and space emergencies for FY 2022. In addition, in September 2020, the Judicial Conference declared a judicial space emergency for the Nazario U.S. Courthouse and Degetau Federal Building Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, due to unique circumstances that have arisen as a result of GSA’s planned seismic retrofit of the Degetau Federal Building and the significant detrimental impact it would have on district court components currently housed in the Degetau Federal Building. All projects on Part I have a completed GSA Phase II feasibility study or equivalent to establish cost estimates and housing solutions needed to address local court housing needs.

Judicial Space Emergency FUNDING SUMMARY ($M) FY 2022 Funding Request Previously Funded Est.Total (Site/Design, Site Status District City Project Description Site/Design Construction Site/Design Construction Construction) Acquired (as of 1/2021) District of Puerto Rico San Juan Courthouse Annex 22.476 239.696 0.000 0.000 262.172 Yes GSA Feas. Study - Completed NOTES: - Cost estimate based on 2021 GSA phasing study. GSA will submit a separate future year funding request in order to complete their full Master Plan for the Hato Rey Judicial Complex - Site for Courthouse Annex federally owned

Part I: Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Courthouse Construction Funding Priorities FUNDING SUMMARY ($M) FY 2022 Funding Request Previously Funded Est.Total (Site/Design, Site Status Priority District City Project Description Site/Design Construction Site/Design Construction Construction) Acquired (as of 1/2021) 1 District of Connecticut Hartford New Courthouse 0.000 199.470 58.636 76.864 334.970 No Ph II Feas. Study – Completed 2 Eastern District of Tennessee Chattanooga New Courthouse 0.000 94.611 32.000 62.500 189.111 No Ph II Feas. Study In-Progress TOTAL: 0.000 294.081 90.636 139.364 524.081 NOTES: - Project description and funding summary for Chattanooga based on GSA Ph I feasibility study; CPP will be updated with revised cost estimate when Ph II study is completed - All projects have been assessed using the AMP process; judiciary policies pertaining to courtroom sharing and the exclusion of projected judgeships have been applied to all projects

Page 1 of 2 Part II of the CPP identifies outyear courthouse construction priorities. All locations have been assessed under the AMP process and prioritized based on the project location’s UE rating. As projects in Part I are funded and constructed, projects in Part II may potentially move to Part I. A project location must have a completed Phase II feasibility study before moving to Part I. In selecting which projects should begin a Phase II study, the Judicial Conference will rely heavily on a location’s UE rating. Where multiple locations have similar scores, additional factors may be considered, including prisoner production figures during a given period of time, previous funding, and whether the current facility is owned by GSA. When a Phase II feasibility study has been completed, that project will be elevated to Part I and placed behind any other locations already on Part I the next time the CPP is updated. Until a location is moved to Part I, its UE rating will be refreshed each year to capture changes in courtroom needs, chambers needs, and caseload growth, and as a result, its place in the prioritization of Part II projects may change.

Part II: CPP Outyear Courthouse Construction Priorities (Based on 2020 Urgency Evaluation Rating)

District City 2020 UE Rating Site Acquired Status (of 1/2021) Western District of Kentucky Bowling Green 67.316 No Ph II GSA Feasibility Study – In-Progress District of Alaska Anchorage 47.534 No Ph I GSA Feasibility Study - Completed Middle District of North Carolina Greensboro/W-S 39.900 No Ph I GSA Feasibility Study - Completed Southern District of Texas McAllen 38.993 No Ph I GSA Feasibility Study - Completed Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk 31.827 Yes GSA Feasibility Study - Completed in 2010; needs refresh

NOTES: - Policies pertaining to judiciary courtroom sharing and the exclusion of projected judgeships have been applied to the planning and programming of all projects - All projects have been assessed under the AMP process

Page 2 of 2